United Nations experts say that beyond immediate destruction, armed conflicts disrupt ecosystems, deplete natural resources, contaminate the environment, and jeopardize the health of the planet for future generations.

The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) was adopted in 1976 to prohibit the use of environmental modification techniques as a means of warfare. In addition, Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions includes two key provisions — Articles 35 and 55 — prohibiting methods or means of warfare that are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

However, the adequacy of these two instruments was called into question during the 1990–1991 Persian Gulf War. The extensive pollution caused by the deliberate destruction of more than 600 oil wells in Kuwait, along with subsequent claims of $85 billion in environmental damage, led to growing calls to strengthen legal protections for the environment during armed conflict.

Since the start of terrorist attacks by the United States and the Zionist regime against Iran, numerous infrastructures — including oil storage facilities — have been targeted in acts of aggression.

A spokesperson for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), speaking at a press conference in Geneva, raised concerns about the health and environmental consequences of attacks by Israel and the United States on oil depots in Iran due to the release of toxic pollutants into the air.

The spokesperson stated that these impacts raise “serious questions regarding compliance with the principles of proportionality and precaution under international humanitarian law,” emphasizing that the sites struck did not appear to have been used exclusively for military purposes.

Christian Lindmeier, spokesperson for the World Health Organization (WHO), also warned that the “black rain” and “acid rain” reported in Tehran following the attacks pose real dangers to public health in Iran, according to Al Jazeera.

Public concern over the targeting or misuse of the environment during wartime first reached its peak during the Vietnam War, widely regarded as the longest war of the 20th century and a military defeat for the United States. In the U.S., the conflict gave rise to what became known as the “Vietnam Syndrome,” reflecting widespread public aversion to American military interventions abroad.

Over the past six decades, civilians have been the primary victims of war. Protecting civilians and civilian property during armed conflict therefore forms the cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL). IHL is also intended to be implemented effectively and in a timely manner to provide greater protection to vulnerable civilian groups such as women, children, and displaced persons.

There have been numerous other instances in which armed conflicts have directly and indirectly caused significant environmental damage. For example, dozens of industrial sites were bombed during the 1999 Kosovo conflict, resulting in toxic chemical contamination in several sensitive areas — including Pancevo, Kragujevac, Novi Sad, and Bor — and raising concerns about potential pollution of the Danube River.

In another case, it is estimated that during the 2006 conflict between Israel and Lebanon, between 12,000 and 15,000 tons of fuel oil were spilled into the Mediterranean Sea.

According to The Guardian, the armed conflict in Iraq that began in June 2014 and concluded in 2017 with the recapture of territory previously controlled by ISIS left a deep environmental footprint. As militants retreated, they set fire to oil wells, releasing a toxic mixture of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, particulate matter, and heavy metals such as nickel, vanadium, and lead into the atmosphere.

Although the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) states that it works with member states and partners to strengthen environmental protection before, during, and after armed conflict, environmental protection must receive the same level of political priority as human rights protection.

Assessments of the consequences of past wars have shown that targeting fuel reserves can have multifaceted environmental effects. Oil fires release harmful substances into the air, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and lead. These pollutants can spread over wide areas before settling into the soil, causing serious short-term health impacts on people and wildlife — particularly those with pre-existing respiratory conditions.

Groundwater contamination also threatens agricultural land and communities that rely on groundwater and surface water for irrigation, drinking, and domestic use. Prolonged exposure to such pollutants may lead to respiratory disorders, liver damage, and kidney problems.

For this reason, human rights experts emphasize that just as civilians must be protected from killing, abuse, and material loss, the right to a healthy environment is itself a human right deserving greater attention within the international community.

More broadly, the environmental footprint of war — and its impact on populations and natural resources — requires a stronger legal framework to ensure accountability, provide timely assistance to affected communities, and condemn acts of aggression that have been imposed on Iran in recent weeks by the United States and Israel.